O istorie a copilăriei în Rusia şi URSS, 1890-1991 (notă de lectură)

Catriona Kelly, Children's World: Growing Up in Russia, 1890-1991, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2007. O carte fascinantă despre viaţa cotidiană a copiilor în Rusia şi URSS pe durata unui secol (1890-1991). Această carte, doctă (informată din numeroase surse de arhivă, presă, interviuri cu cca 300 de subiecţi), propune o analiză foarte fină asupra cotidianului copilăriei ruseşti şi sovietice, fără să se lase absorbită de un empirism frust şi necritic. Cartea emană un punct de vedere neangajat  ideologic (într-un sens sau altul): atunci cînd faptele sînt evidente, recunoaşte fără reţineri realizările sistemului educaţional şi asistenţial ţarist (de la începutul secolului) şi ale celui sovietic. Totodată, autoarea rămîne lucidă asupra mizelor educaţiei (de creare a unor cetăţeni loiali, pe lîngă însuşirea unor cunoştinţe cu valoare culturală, ştiinţifică sau tehnică), într-un sistem şi într-altul. În ciuda discursului antagonizator al istoriografiei sovietice oficiale şi a unei istoriografii occidentale, cartea pune în valoare liniile de continuitate între procesul de constituire şi de reformare a unui sistem de învăţămînt public în Rusia ţaristă (mai ales începînd cu sfîrşitul secolului 19) şi în URSS, imediat după revoluţie.

Iată cîteva citate din carte:

„The presentation of children in propaganda as loving, docile beneficiaries of the leader had resonance with an underlying concept of adults as subjects and beneficiaries of the state, rather than as empowered citizens.” (2)

“It could be argued that the three decades between 1890 and 1917 saw more profound alterations in attitudes to children than the seven and a half decades of Soviet power, which (from mid-1930s particularly) were characterized by a desperate striving for coherence and stability than a 'shock of the new'”. (3)

“In the first decade and a half of Soviet power's contradictory attitudes to children emerged. (...) children were at once citizens and subjects, assertive yet docile.” (93)

“From the mid-1930s onwards, attitudes to children became much more consistent. All commitment to children's autonomy was abandoned: the model child was now without question one who was obedient, and grateful to adults for their guidance.” (93)

“From ‘revolutionary soldiers’ and the vanguard of the Revolution, children had to become the quintessential beneficiaries, and petitioners, of the Soviet state, which could, like a stern parent, choose to withhold rewards and mete out punishment if it so chose.” (105)

“Children who reached the school entered in a different world, with its own peculiar inventory of essential goods, a world where time was divided into regular stretches by bells, where rules had to be followed, and where older children were as vigilant as teachers in imposing norms of behavior [sometimes contrary to teachers’ norms]. Schooling constituted a process of socialization in a very broad sense. It combined intellectual training (obrazovanie), skills training (obuchenie), and moral and character education (vospitanie). It also introduced many children to a world of new rituals and practices, running from the public repetition of homework to the celebration of a whole range of festivals.” (495)

“On balance, Soviet primary education represented a compromise between the values of ‘free education’ and those of the official Tsarist classroom.” (531)

“Military training was important not only because of the practical benefits, to a bellicose state (…). The unquestioning obedience of the soldier to the command structure was supposed to be a model for Soviet citizenship on the broadest sense. Equally, the emphasis on heroism in literature and history teaching brought into the classroom the stress on leadership that was essential to the Stalinist system, and signaled a shift back to a coercive view of the school’s responsibility for moral or character education.” (541)

“In the course of the Stalin era, emphasis on loyalty to the national ideal became increasingly coercive; surveillance in schools became closer and more punitive in character. These innovations were retained – despite criticism of harsh discipline – in the post-Stalin era.” (545)